What is a slur? Redskins case forces us to decide

In this June 18, 2014 file photo, the Washington Redskins name is displayed on a building at their training facility at Redskins Park during NFL football minicamp in Ashburn, Va.

Something is happening
just beneath the fight over the name of a certain Washington, D.C., pro
football team: America is working through the process of determining
what is -- or is not -- racially offensive.

What is a slur, and who
gets to decide? How many people must be offended to tip the scales? Why
should some be forced to sacrifice their traditions out of respect for
others?

We are a long way from consensus on these questions,
judging by the response to a federal ruling that the "Redskins" team
name is disparaging and its trademarks should be canceled.

The
team is appealing the decision, and even if it loses its trademark, it
can still use the name. But this latest development highlights the
limitations of how America wrestles with certain racial statements, and
our struggle to balance free speech and social good.

A rapidly diversifying nation has more need than ever to figure out what is racially offensive.

Some
offenses are undeniable: NBA owner Donald Sterling earned universal
condemnation for asking his mistress not to bring black people to his
games.

Yet in an era of blunt and sometimes coarse online
discussion and political debate, Americans continue to disagree about
the nature of calling Hispanics who cross the border without documents
"illegals," or the propriety of images that depict President Barack
Obama as a "witch doctor."

And it took years of discussion to win
makeovers for Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben, the stereotypical black faces
used to sell syrup and rice.

Jim McCarthy, a lawyer who followed
the Redskins trademark case, said he is not offended by the name, but
"there's no denying the fact that a certain percentage of Native
Americans are offended. We don't know if it's a minority, a majority,
but it's a fact."

"If we want to be the best version of ourselves
in our society, do we want to promote that, or do we want to minimize
that?" he asked.

"I'd love it to be different where people just cooperate to effect change," he said. "But we're a very adversarial society."

Michael
Lindsay, who was lead attorney for Indians in a prior trademark case,
said there are two ways to determine if something is offensive.

"The
first is the legal path. The other is out in the real world. The legal
test, it seems to me, actually does have something to teach the real
world," said Lindsay, of the Dorsey and Whitney firm in Minneapolis.

Here
is what the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ruling Wednesday in a
case first filed more than 20 years ago, tried to show the real world:

-- What matters is if "Redskins" is disparaging to Native Americans -- whether other ethnic groups are offended doesn't matter.

--
A "substantial" percentage of Native Americans must be offended -- not a
majority. The judges defined that threshold at 30 percent.

-- A
disparaging term does not require intent: "Redskins" can still be
disparaging even if the team says it is intended to show honor and
respect.

Based on testimony from linguistics and lexicography
experts, and a review of how the term was used in dictionaries, books,
newspapers, magazines and movies, the board ruled 2-1 that the term was
disparaging to Native Americans.

The dissenting opinion was not a
ringing endorsement of the term: "I am not suggesting that the term
"redskins" was not disparaging ... Rather, my conclusion is that the
evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was," the judge
wrote.

All of which left Paul Calobrisi, co-founder of
www.savethewashingtonredskins.com, quite unsatisfied. In his opinion,
there's a simple way to determine whether something is a slur: The
majority rules.

"I think an overwhelming majority of Native
Americans should be against the name before we change it," said
Calobrisi, who grew up in Virginia rooting for the team.

He resisted the idea that a few people could decide something is offensive when he did not intend to offend them.

"If
they think we're demeaning them, if they think we think they are
mascots, if we were doing it in any negative way, they are wrong ... As
Redskins fans, we love them. Cowboys and Indians, we were the Indians.
We cherish these people."

But intent is irrelevant to Lindsay, the
attorney: "When a substantial percentage tell you this is offensive,
you should stop. It's really that simple."

"Even if you meant no offense, if you keep using it, what does that say about you?"

It
says that some people care more about their traditions than determining
what is offensive, said Gillian McGoldrick, editor-in-chief of the
school newspaper at Neshaminy High School in Langhorne, Pennsylvania.

Neshaminy's
mascot is the "Redskins." Her newspaper recently chose to no longer
print the name, but school administrators ordered them to do so. When
McGoldrick and her staff resisted, administrators briefly confiscated
the newspapers.

At first, McGoldrick thought the name honored
Native Americans. But when an Indian school parent objected, she
researched the history and usage of the word and changed her mind. She
doesn't think those who support the team name have fully investigated
the issue.

"I don't think they want to," she said. "I think they
want to decide the word for themselves. But that's not how this works.
We have dictionaries for that."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
says the term is "very offensive and should be avoided." But again,
given today's confrontational discourse on the Internet and in politics,
do we really care about giving offense? Or has that value gone the way
of curtsies and tipping hats?

"As a general culture, I think we
care about offending certain people," said Karmit Bulman, executive
director of the Conflict Resolution Center in Minneapolis. "We are still
very much a power-based society. We care if we offend those in power.
We don't care if we offend those who we see as irrelevant and
invisible."

"You can look at this (Redskins case) as a trivial
dispute, it's just a name," she said. "Or you can look at it as
demonstrating how we still have huge clashes between people who we see
as different than we are. And that our systems that we use to try to
address those issues are really unsatisfactory."

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.